How many “individual” peer reviewers actually represent a hidden number of ECRs carrying out peer review with and for them? Help us find out!

Peer review is viewed as central to the evaluation of research, and in the case of peer review of manuscripts for journal publication, an activity that is seen as part of the service of a researcher.

Graduate students, as those training in how to carry out research, should therefore clearly be participating in, and receiving training in, constructive peer review. Postdocs are researchers in a position of mentored independence – working on their own projects and research plans, and learning how to manage a research group from an independent principal investigator. As such, postdocs are already intellectually capable of being fully involved in the peer review process.

But, how involved are these early career researchers (ECRs) in journal peer review?

A recent survey in eLife, a journal publishing life sciences research, indicated that 92% of those surveyed had undertaken reviewing activities. But more than half, and 37% of graduate students, had done so without the assistance of their advisor:

This statistic may come as a surprise to some but, anecdotally, discussions with ECRs (particularly in the life sciences) point to a number of incidences of “ghostwriting” of peer review reports: that is, carrying out peer review of a manuscript, writing the report, and submitting it to a supervisor, who submits the report (or some version of it) under their own name, and without the name of the co-reviewer.

This led us to ask: just how often does this “ghostwriting” occur? Why does it happen? Is it unique to the life sciences? What can we do to ensure the recognition of scholarly work by ECRs?

We are working on understanding more about, and resolving, this issue.

First, please help us by filling out this survey on peer review attitudes and experiences:

Over the coming weeks, we will update this page with resources, data and recommendations to ensure that the scholarly work of ECRs is recognized, and that training for peer review is recognized as a central part of graduate training.

The ECR Peer Review Survey

Peer review of academic manuscripts is essential to maintain integrity in science and is integral to the journal publication process. Early Career Researchers (ECRs) often contribute to this peer review process. While ECRs may review manuscripts jointly with or under the direction of a senior academic, such as a Principal Investigator (PI), Group Leader, or Professor, a large number of ECRs claimed in a recent survey to have acted as peer review “ghostwriters”; that is, the peer review report (i.e. the final review submitted to the journal editor) had only the senior academic’s name attributed to the report.

This survey is designed to collect more data about the phenomenon of ghostwriting by ECRs. The goal of this survey is to assess the experiences and opinions of the community, and to recommend best practices for recognizing co-reviewing activities.

This survey contains 16 questions and is estimated to take 15 minutes.

Please help us to gather data by filling out this survey and sharing it with your colleagues!

If you’re interested in hearing more about the survey results, sign up to our mailing list.

Which journals recognize or encourage coreviewers?

As part of our effort to increase transparency about the role of early career researchers in peer review, we are trying to collect data on the policies that journals have implemented with respect to involvement of early career researchers. Particularly we are looking at how transparent co-reviewer policies are, and whether expectations around co-reviewing are made clear. Future of Research is particularly interested in the component you can search below – which journals allow co-reviewers to be named!

We are part of a collaborative project, TRANsparency in Scholarly Publishing for Open Scholarship Evolution or TRANSPOSE, to work on gathering this and other data about scholarly publishing.

What is TRANSPOSE?

TRANSPOSE is a new, grassroots initiative aiming to crowdsource a list of journal policies for (1) open peer review, (2) co-reviewer involvement (displayed below), and (3) pre-printing. For more information and to contribute, visit TRANSPOSE. These data are licensed CC0.

If you can’t find a journal by searching below, you can add a new record by clicking here.

Why TRANSPOSE?

Journal policies on peer review and preprints are variable and complex. Existing databases (such as SHERPA/RoMEO and Publons) contain some, but not all, of this information.

How can I help?

If you’d like to add data (which you can see below) please click on the journal you’d like to update, and enter the information!

What’s next?

The TRANSPOSE project has been accepted as part of the Scholarly Communication Institute 2018 Meeting in Chapel Hill, NC. This year’s meeting theme is Overcoming Risk, and one of the risks identified in our project is the risk ECRs face when it comes to ensuring their scholarly contribution is recognized. ECRs may feel hesitant to contribute to peer review done in the name of their supervisor; and supervisors may not disclose names of others involved in review where journal policies suggest such common practices may have punitive consequences. Providing appropriate and ethical credit for their involvement would reduce their risk.

This working conference, bringing together members of our team from around the world, will be used to improve and expand upon our efforts. The members of the team include Dr. Jessica Polka (ASAPbio), Dr. Jennifer Lin (CrossRef), Dr. Benedikt Fecher (Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society), Dr. Samantha Hindle (bioRxiv), Dr. Tony Ross-Hellauer (Know-Center GmbH) and Dr. Gary McDowell (FoR).

Show me the data already!

You can click on the link in the final column to update a journal. If you can’t find a journal by searching below, you can add a new record by clicking here.

TRANSPOSE

Journal

Public co-reviewer policy?

Policy link

Co-reviewer policy

Does the journal make clear in the reviewer invitation email that co-reviewers can contribute?

Can co-reviewers get credit for peer review?

Peer review credit policy

Does the journal deposit information about peer reviewer activity into any open databases?

Is there a dedicated way to identify co-reviewers in a submission form?

Edit the policy

Health Science Reports

Yes

While the review process is confidential, we understand that in some cases reviewers might want to collaborate with trainees, colleagues, or associates in the evaluation of manuscripts. While we encourage this practice, we ask that the collaborative assessment is limited to no more than one colleague at a time and that the identity and contact information of this colleague is disclosed to the editor in the "Confidential Comments to the Editor" component of the review; this will allow us to consider this expert for future peer review processes and to grant due recognition for their efforts. It is the person originally invited to review the manuscript, however, the one ultimately responsible for ensuring the confidential handling of the manuscript and for the content of the submitted report.

Yes

Yes

No mention/unsure, Recognition – All journals publish a complete list of reviewers on the website at the end of each year.

Yes

Journal of Cheminformatics

Unsure

No

No mention/unsure

No

Journal of Horticultural Sciences

No

Unsure

Unsure

No mention/unsure

Unsure

Ramathibodi Medical Journal

Unsure

No, but reviewers get FASCO points and publicly "Thank you" from editors

While reviews must be kept confidential, it is ok for reviewers to have a co-reviewer (for instance, if they are mentoring a junior faculty or fellow and have them assist in the review). Reviewers can give co-reviewers credit via Publons. All journals but JCO have a mentoring program to mentor early career professionals on the peer review process.

No

Yes

Directly linked to reviewer's ORCiD profile, Partnered with Publons, We give DataCite DOIs that can then link the reviews to their ORCID profiles

Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

No

No

No

Revista Brasileira de Medicina de Família e Comunidade

Yes

Manuscripts are considered the property of their authors, and peer review is confidential, so reviewers should not delegate or discuss manuscript evaluation to/with third parties. If a peer reviewer believes a college’s opinion would be valuable, he or she should suggest the college’s name to the editor.

No

No

Traffic

No

none

No

No

WikiJournal of Science

Unsure

Nucleic Acids Research

Yes

The review process is strictly confidential. Referees should not discuss the manuscript with anyone not directly involved in the review process. Referees may consult with colleagues or other experts in the field only upon approval from the Executive Editor. Under no circumstances should the Referees disclose, copy, share or distribute any of the manuscript files or any of their comments. In the event of queries, the Referees must not contact the Authors directly but must raise the queries with the Executive Editor.

Unsure

Blood

Unsure

"Please note that all information regarding a submitted paper should be kept confidential."

Unsure

Unsure

European Journal of Neuroscience

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

European Respiratory Journal
European Respiratory Review
ERJ Open Research
Breathe

Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.

From SPE Confidentiality Guidelines document: "Do not share the manuscript with others during the review process without obtaining
permission from the journal leadership first"

Unsure

Directly linked to reviewer's ORCiD profile, Partnered with Publons

Journal of Scientific Exploration

Directly linked to reviewer's ORCiD profile

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
Frontiers in Big Data
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Frontiers in Blockchain
Frontiers in Built Environment
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
Frontiers in Chemistry
Frontiers in Communication
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
Frontiers in Digital Humanities
Frontiers in Earth Science
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Frontiers in Education
Frontiers in Endocrinology
Frontiers in Energy Research
Frontiers in Environmental Science
Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
Frontiers in Genetics
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Frontiers in ICT
Frontiers in Immunology
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
Frontiers in Marine Science
Frontiers in Materials
Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Microbiology
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
Frontiers in Neural Circuits
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
Frontiers in Neuroenergetics
Frontiers in Neuroengineering
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers in Neurorobotics
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Frontiers in Nutrition
Frontiers in Oncology
Frontiers in Pediatrics
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Frontiers in Physics
Frontiers in Physiology
Frontiers in Plant Science
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers in Public Health
Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
Frontiers in Sociology
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
Frontiers in Veterinary Science

No

This is handled by request only

No

Yes

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Yes

DMM encourages the involvement of postdocs and other early career scientists in the peer review process. We simply ask that: the name of the co-reviewer is reported to the Editor (a field is provided in the report form for this purpose); the same rules of confidentiality and conflict of interest be applied; there is a genuine mentoring process; and the senior invited reviewer takes final responsibility for the report delivered to the journal.

Yes

Yes

Biology Open

Yes

BiO encourages the involvement of postdocs and other early career scientists in the peer review process. We simply ask that: the name of the co-reviewer is reported to the Editor; the same rules of confidentiality and conflict of interest be applied; there is a genuine mentoring process; and the senior invited reviewer takes responsibility for the report delivered to the journal.

No

No

Journal of Cell Science

Yes

Journal of Cell Science encourages the involvement of postdocs and other early career scientists in the peer review process. We simply ask that: the name of the co-reviewer is reported to the Editor (a field is provided in the report form for this purpose); the same rules of confidentiality and conflict of interest be applied; there is a genuine mentoring process; the senior invited reviewer takes responsibility for the report delivered to the journal.

Yes

Yes

Journal of Experimental Biology

Yes

JEB encourages the involvement of postdocs and other early career scientists in the peer review process. We simply ask that: the name of the co-reviewer is reported to the Editor; the same rules of confidentiality and conflict of interest be applied; there is a genuine mentoring process; and the senior invited reviewer takes responsibility for the report delivered to the journal.

Yes

Yes

Development

Yes

Development encourages the involvement of postdocs and other early career scientists in the peer review process. We simply ask that: the name of the co-reviewer is reported to the Editor (a field is provided in the report form for this purpose); the same rules of confidentiality and conflict of interest be applied; there is a genuine mentoring process; the senior invited reviewer takes responsibility for the report delivered to the journal.

Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.

Yes

PLoS Pathogens

Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.

Yes

PLoS Genetics

Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.

Yes

PLoS Computational Biology

Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.

Yes

PLoS Medicine

Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.

Yes

PLoS Biology

Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.

Yes

PLoS ONE

Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review.

Yes

Obstetrics & Gynecology

Unsure

eLife

Yes

co-reviewing a manuscript with a single experienced junior colleague can be an important learning experience that we are happy to support. To provide accountability and appropriate credit, the name of the co-referee should be disclosed to the editors in advance and we would encourage all reviewers to consider sharing their names with the authors.

Yes

No

No mention/unsure

Yes

Royal Society Open Science

Unsure

Partnered with Publons

Open Biology

Clinical Genetics

PeerJ
PeerJ Computer Science

No

Reviewers are permitted to use a co-reviewer, but the system doesn't record the fact or credit the co-reviewer. It is the reviewer's responsibility to mention that there was a co-reviewer.

No

No

GigaScience

No

We don't have it written explicitly on our instructions but if reviewers ask to do it we are very happy to allow this. We then get them to co-sign at the bottom of the report, and we try to add the additional names into publons and the (DataCite) DOI metadata so everyone is credited.

No

No

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

Yes

Material under review is a privileged communication that should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the designated review process unless necessary and approved by the editor. If you wish to consult a colleague for assistance with the review, please ensure they are free of any conflicts of interest and agree to abide by journal policies.

Yes

Yes

F1000 Research
Wellcome Open Research
Gates Open Research
AAS Open Research
HRB Open Research
AMRC Open Research
MNI Open Research

Yes

The referee form includes a section for you to declare any competing interests, and for you to name anyone who co-refereed the article with you. Co-referees’ names and affiliations are also published, so that they receive full credit.

Yes

Yes

Journal of Neuroscience Research

No

Journal of Neuroscience Research allows co-reviewers, but do not have an official policy. Once developed, i will update the Author guidelines once this has been made clear.

No

No

JAMA

Unsure

Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal editors

Unsure

Current Research in Digital History

No

medecine de l'afrique noir

No

Unsure

No

American Quarterly

No

Public Philosophy Journal

Yes

Upon submitting their work, composers are asked to nominate a formative peer reviewer who is engaged with the issue of public concern addressed by the submission. To facilitate the review process, each submission is then assigned to a formative peer review coordinator whose first task is to identify a complementary reviewer.
Peer reviewers and composers are able to view and engage each other's comments in conversation during the review process. Coordinators play an active and vital role in that conversation, ensuring that it unfolds in a collegial and caring way. They stimulate ongoing dialogue between composers and peer reviewers by encouraging composers to respond more thoroughly to reviewer feedback, and encouraging reviewers to provide persistent support to composers as their works advance toward publication.
Like peer reviewers, coordinators are offered the opportunity at the end of the process to compose public holistic responses that may be published alongside the work itself.

Yes

Unsure

Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy

No

none

No

No

portal: Libraries and the Academy

No

None specified

Unsure

Unsure

Cultural Anthropology

No

No

Unsure

No mention/unsure

No

Algerian Journal of Natural Products

No

No

Unsure

No

Revue science ouverte

Unsure

No mention/unsure

Historical Archaeology

No

No

Unsure

No mention/unsure

No

Journal of Southern History

No

Unsure

Yes

Partnered with Publons

Unsure

Notes: the Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association

Unsure

No mention/unsure

Environmental History

No

None.

No

Unsure

No mention/unsure

No

Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship

No

N/A

No

Unsure

Partnered with Publons

No

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

No

Unsure

Unsure

No

Unsure

The Public Historian

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

No

Unsure

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies

No

Journal does not have one

No

No mention/unsure

No

William and Mary Quarterly

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Partnered with Publons

Unsure

19th-Century Studies

No

No

Partnered with Publons

Unsure

Advanced Materials

No

Unsure

No

No

Unsure

Geophysical Research Letters

Unsure

Unsure

No

No

Unsure

Environmental Science & Technology

No

Unsure

No

Only allows reviewers to display the journal they reviewed for (here: The Lancet)

Unsure

Angewandte Chemie International Edition

No

Unsure

No mention/unsure

No

Astronomy & Astrophysics

No

Unsure

Unsure

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

No

Unsure

Unsure

The Astrophysical Journal

No

Unsure

Unsure

Applied Physics Letters

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Physical Review Letters

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Cell Death and Disease

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Chemistry of materials

No

No

Unsure

Cell Death and Differentiation

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Scientific Reports

Yes

Confidentiality
Editorial Board Members and reviewers must treat the review process as strictly confidential, and not discuss the manuscript with anyone not directly involved in the review. It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but we ask that they are identified to the Editorial Board Member. Consulting with experts from outside the referee's own laboratory may also be acceptable, but please check with the Editorial Board Member before doing so, to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors.

Unsure

Cell

No

British Medical Journal (The BMJ)

Yes

This is the for BMJ parent journal general policy: Unpublished manuscripts are confidential and you must not disclose their contents to anyone except a professional colleague whose input you request as part of your review process. If you do choose to discuss the manuscript and/or your review with a professional colleague you are responsible for ensuring that they are made fully aware of the confidential nature of the discussion and that they must not disclose any information about the manuscript until the article is published. The identity of any co-reviewer and any potential conflicting or competing interests they may have must be disclosed when submitting your review.

Unsure

Unsure

Nature Nanotechnology

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Chemistry

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Materials

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Cell Reports

No

Cell Stem Cell

No

Cell Systems

No

Chem

No

Current Biology

No

Developmental Cell

No

Immunity

No

iScience

No

Joule

No

Molecular Cell

No

Neuron

No

Structure

No

Cell

No

Cell Metabolism

No

Cell Host & Microbe

No

Cell Chemical Biology

No

Cancer Cell

No

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Unsure

Unsure

Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology

Yes

https://www.nature.com/nrm/for-referees

Yes

Unsure

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Unsure

Unsure

The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters

No

Unsure

Unsure

Nano Letters

No

Unsure

Unsure

Nature Reviews Genetics

Yes

https://www.nature.com/nrg/for-referees#online

Unsure

Yes

Nature Communications

Yes

We ask referees to treat the review process as strictly confidential, and not to discuss the manuscript with anyone not directly involved in the review. It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but please identify them to the editors. Consulting with experts from outside the referee's own laboratory may be acceptable, but please check with the editors before doing so, to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors.

Unsure

Unsure

Gastroenterology

Unsure

" The journal expects reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential communications and not to use the content for their own purposes or make copies of the manuscripts. "

Unsure

Unsure

Journal of the American Chemical Society

No

Unsure

Unsure

Chemical Reviews

No

Unsure

Unsure

Circulation

No

Unsure

ACS Nano

No

Unsure

Unsure

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

No

Unsure

Unsure

European Heart Journal

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Nature Cell Biology

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Unsure

Chemical communications (Cambridge, England)

No

Unsure

Unsure

Nanoscale

No

Unsure

Unsure

Journal of Materials Chemistry. A

No

Unsure

Unsure

Energy and Environmental Science

No

Unsure

Unsure

Chemical Society Reviews

No

Unsure

Unsure

Accounts of Chemical Research

No

Unsure

Unsure

Advanced Energy Materials

No

Advanced Functional Materials

No

EMBO Journal

Yes

"Thus, The EMBO Journal allows co-refereeing with one other senior member of a referee's laboratory as part of the mentoring process only if the primary referee has independently evaluated the manuscript and agrees with the report filed. For co-review, conflict of interest and confidentiality rules apply to both referees. In order to provide accountability and appropriate credit, we request that the name of the co-referee be documented to the editors. If an invited referee does not have the time to review, another member of the laboratory or institute can be recommended to the editors."

Yes

Yes

Journal of College Student Development

No

Unsure

College Student Journal

No

The Journal of Higher Education

No

Unsure

Research in Higher Education

No

Higher Education

No

Unsure

Studies in Higher Education

No

Unsure

No

Science

No

Unsure

The New England Journal of Medicine

No

Unsure

The Lancet

Unsure

Peer review
• Every Article, Hypothesis, Seminar, and Review published in
The Lancet has been peer reviewed. Occasional contributions (eg,
Essays) are accepted without peer review
• On submission to The Lancet, your report will first be read by one
or more of the journal’s staff of physicians and scientists. Our
acceptance rate overall is about 5% and it is an important feature
of our selection process that many papers are turned away on the
basis of in-house assessment alone. That decision will be
communicated quickly
• Research papers and most other types of paper that receive
positive in-house reviews are followed by peer review by at least
three reviewers. You will receive notification of which editor is
handling the peer review of your paper

Unsure

Unsure

eNeuro

Yes

Plant Direct

No

Biophysical Journal

Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

No

they are informed about the possibility in the invitation and follow up letters and at the submission leve are asked if the has a co-review and what was their name, email and contribution.

Yes

Yes

Developmental Biology

No

they are informed about the possibility in the invitation and follow up letters and at the submission leve are asked if the has a co-review and what was their name, email and contribution.

Yes

Yes

Annals of Medicine and Surgery

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

FASEB Journal

The American Naturalist

Journal of Medical Case Reports

Yes

The Editors endorse peer review mentoring within the Journal of Medical Case Reports. If you are a senior researcher or professor and supervise an early career researcher with the appropriate expertise, we invite you to co-write and mentor them through the peer review process.

Yes

Unsure

Pilot and Feasibility Studies

Yes

The Editors endorse peer review mentoring within the Journal of Medical Case Reports. If you are a senior researcher or professor and supervise an early career researcher with the appropriate expertise, we invite you to co-write and mentor them through the peer review process.

Yes

Unsure

Systematic Reviews

Yes

The Editors endorse peer review mentoring within the Journal of Medical Case Reports. If you are a senior researcher or professor and supervise an early career researcher with the appropriate expertise, we invite you to co-write and mentor them through the peer review process.

Yes

Unsure

Trials

Yes

The Editors endorse peer review mentoring within the Journal of Medical Case Reports. If you are a senior researcher or professor and supervise an early career researcher with the appropriate expertise, we invite you to co-write and mentor them through the peer review process.

Yes

Unsure

EMBO Reports

Yes

"Thus, The EMBO Journal allows co-refereeing with one other senior member of a referee's laboratory as part of the mentoring process only if the primary referee has independently evaluated the manuscript and agrees with the report filed. For co-review, conflict of interest and confidentiality rules apply to both referees. In order to provide accountability and appropriate credit, we request that the name of the co-referee be documented to the editors. If an invited referee does not have the time to review, another member of the laboratory or institute can be recommended to the editors."

Journal of Immunology

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

No

they are informed about the possibility in the invitation and follow up letters and at the submission leve are asked if the has a co-review and what was their name, email and contribution.

The referee form includes a section for you to declare any competing interests, and for you to name anyone who co-refereed the article with you. Co-referees’ names and affiliations are also published, so that they receive full credit.

Yes

Yes

The Plant Cell

No

Plant Physiology

No

Nature

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Astronomy

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Biomedical Engineering

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Biotechnology

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Catalysis

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Chemical Biology

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Climate Change

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Digest

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Ecology & Evolution

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Electronics

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Energy

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Genetics

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Geoscience

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Human Behaviour

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Immunology

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Machine Intelligence

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Medicine

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Metabolism

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Methods

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Microbiology

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Milestones

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Neuroscience

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Photonics

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Physics

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Plants

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Protocols

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Reports Climate Change

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Nature Sustainability

Yes

If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.

Journal

Public co-reviewer policy?

Policy link

Co-reviewer policy

Does the journal make clear in the reviewer invitation email that co-reviewers can contribute?

Can co-reviewers get credit for peer review?

Peer review credit policy

Does the journal deposit information about peer reviewer activity into any open databases?

Is there a dedicated way to identify co-reviewers in a submission form?